Regional discussion and conditions reports for the great state of Utah, from the alpine peaks to the desert slots. Please post partners requests and trip plans here or in the Utah Climbing Partners section.

Dmitry Pruss wrote:There is a private property sign at a gate on the old mining road turnoff at the base of the proposed coaster area, but nobody goes through this gate to access the South Ridge anyway. You are leaving the road and turning sharply uphill before the posted gate, and to every reasonable hiker or skier it would seem that one isn't ever crossing private property.

So, it doesn't seem that the location of the proposed coaster actually impedes the climbing or skiing routes, since the coaster is situated almost exactly north/south over that mining road.

I guess I just don't quite understand the premise of nearly every post in this topic--we should be able to dictate how others use their private property.

Like heck it doesn't impose on any hiking terrain!! This is what amusement parks are for NOT THE MOUNTAINS!!! UGGGGHHHH! I can't believe what I'm reading!!! It will completely ruin the beauty up that canyon That ridge is such a gorgeous part of that mountain.

jdzaharia wrote: the premise of nearly every post in this topic--we should be able to dictate how others use their private property.

For those of you who live in the United States, it should be no secret that whenever one uses one's property to destroy the value of neighboring properies, then all bets are off.

Just beyond the Snowbird's property lines (and indeed under many of its runs and lifts) is the land owned by, you know whom, this great nation. So of course we should have a say.

Indeed, to secure a temporary permit for this construction. Snowbird did have to argue that this project doesn't endanger the watershed and doesn't block access for recreational users. I think that their argument were , ugm, lies.

They also needed to argue that the county should grant them a special exception from the local construction codes, which ban any development on slopes over 30 degrees. Well, yesterday the county commission did grant them this "variance" for anything up to 50 degrees That's the same appease-the-developers attitude which just played out in BCC with the Tavaci development. Those guys also needed (and received) a variance to build this eyesore road to a luxury development which, lo and behold, attracted no buyers - but the stupid roadcut is now there to stay...

I guess I just don't quite understand the premise of nearly every post in this topic--we should be able to dictate how others use their private property.

The debate is significantly more complicated than that. While I am in favor of respecting private property rights, it's also important to remember that private decisions invariably impose costs on those around you. Sometimes those costs are tolerable and reasonable; sometimes they are not.

This is not a foreign concept. I'm not allowed to build a massive ice climbing tower in my backyard because it would be an eyesore for my neighbors. The HOA and the City/County where I live have oversight in this matter. My uncle was prevented from building as big a radio tower as he wanted in his backyard for a similar reason--there was a cap to the size that they would allow because it imposed costs on his neighbors.

Is Snowbird going to compensate anyone for the costs imposed on the holders of adjoining property (i.e. taxpayers that own the USFS land)? Will they compensate Salt Lake County for the damage done to the watershed? The fundamental problem is that, whereas most HOA's exercise fairly strict oversight on issues for homeowners, USFS (and especially BLM) exercise basically no oversight. Their process, so far as I can tell, is to approve any and all development and only consider alternatives if the public or advocacy organizations raise enough noise about it.

builttospill wrote:I'm not allowed to build a massive ice climbing tower in my backyard because it would be an eyesore for my neighbors. The HOA and the City/County where I live have oversight in this matter. My uncle was prevented from building as big a radio tower as he wanted in his backyard for a similar reason--there was a cap to the size that they would allow because it imposed costs on his neighbors.

Although, in my old neighborhood of Holladay, UT, there is a 3-4 story-tall climbing wall that the Ruckmans built in their backyard. Apparently, if you don't have any habitation in the structure, in Salt Lake City such a structure can then be classified as a "Play Structure", which apparently has no height restrictions according to code (at least according to the Ruckmans when they looked into building the thing). I begged the Ruckmans to let me design a +10 story tall climbing wall in SAP for them to add to the existing "Play Structure", but they declined

I guess I just don't quite understand the premise of nearly every post in this topic--we should be able to dictate how others use their private property.

Like others have said, it isn't like they want to change the drapes in one of their restaurants. All of us, as taxpayers, are "neighbors" to Snowbird. Just like you wouldn't want your neighbor parking a technicolor RV in their yard for a year, we don't want them to build this monstrosity in one of the most beautiful places in our state.

This is much more complicated than a simple private property rights issue. Watershed, USFS land, entities that lease USFS land, scenic byway, avy control, etc. all play into this. I think you're trying to make it into some kind of simple libertarian point. It's not.

Please no!!! I love that ridge, I love looking down at that wild mountain from vantages further up the canoyon. This would diminish that significantly. That's it, I am never buying a daypass from Snowbird again. They have great terrain, but I can't be a hypocrite and support something like this. (That said I believe it is still fair to use my freinds season pass when he is not using it, haha)